This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The petitioner, co-founder and CEO of a natural disaster restoration company and an information technology solutions company, proposed to continue leading both businesses, including developing and marketing IT products such as a moisture-tracking sensor for construction worksites.
Field: information technology / disaster restoration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner established eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (bachelor's equivalent plus five years of progressive experience).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the [P]etitioner has not shown how his proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond the organization, its clients, and the individuals”
“The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's information technology services business would impact the information technology field more broadly or provide the claimed economic benefits to the United States.”
“being an immigrant working in the United States in the information technology or restoration fields... is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence supporting the claims in the business plan.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the opinion's focus on the Petitioner working in an important industry which has a need for professionals... does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The articles submitted do not establish any projected economic impact specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“the record does not support the Petitioner's claims relating to the design, use, and successes of the product”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
The AAO expressly reserved the second and third Dhanasar prongs after finding the first prong dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues; decision also discusses STEM policy guidance (6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)) in rejecting the petitioner's STEM/occupational-shortage arguments.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers